Peace Journalism

WK 18 – Peace Journalism
Dr. Carolina Matos
Government Department
Essex University

Key points
• Peace journalism: definitions
• Journalists as a peacekeeping force?
• The liberal ethos of journalists: objectivity,
professionalism
• The coverage of the war and “infotainment”
• Peace journalism versus war journalism
• Asian conflicts and the Iraq war
• Conclusions
• Seminar activities and questions
• Readings for week 19 and group presentation

Key readings
Required texts:
•Hanitzsch, T. (2004) “Journalists as a peacekeeping force?
Peace journalism and mass communication theory” in
Journalism Studies, 5 (4), 483-495.
• Lee, S. T., and Maslog, C., C. (2005, July) “Asian regional
conflicts and the war in Iraq: A comparative framing analysis”,
paper presented at the annual International Communication
Associatino (ICA), New York, pp 1-26.
Additional:
• Fawcett, L. (2002) “Why peace journalism isn’t news” in
Journalism Studies, 3 (2), 213-223.
• Galtung, J. (1996). Peace by Peaceful Means. London: Sage.
•Lynch, J., and McGoldrick, A. (2005). Peace Journalism.
Gloustershire: Hawthorn Press.
• Matos, C. “Partisanship versus professionalism: the role of the
journalist in the democratization process” in Journalism and
political democracy.

“Journalists as Peacekeeping Force?” (in
Hanitzsch, 2004)
• As the author notes, developments in war reporting (i.e. Gulf War of
1991), played a crucial role in raising critical debate on conflict and
war coverage
• Peace journalism here is defined as “a programme or frame of
journalistic news coverage which contributes to the process of
making and keeping peace respectively to the peaceful settlement
of conflicts.”
• Galtung employed the term since the 1970s, developing two
opposing modes of reporting wars, namely “Peace or Conflict
Journalism” and “War or Violence Journalism.”
• War or Violence Journalism – crisis journalism – one side wins and
the other loses. Disapproval of covering peace initiatives
• “News coverage only begins with the manifestation of violence and
concentrates on its visible consequences…War….advocates the fate
of “our side”, it only exposed the untruths and perpetrators of
atrocities on the “other side”, whereas the lies and cover-up
attempts of “our side” will be supported.

What is peace journalism?
• Peace journalism as a concept entered the field of mass
communications in the 1990s
• Peace journalism can be identified as a special mode of socially
responsible journalism
• Galtung has directed the peace network TRANSCEND, which has
founded its own university
• Correspondents Annabel McGoldrick and Jake Lynch belong to the
international network “Reporting the World”
• “The Peace or Conflict Journalism philosophy is strongly committed
to the prevention of violence and war. It focuses on the creativity of
conflict resolution as well as peace-making and peace-keeping
efforts…..Peace or Conflict Journalism exposed lies, cover-up
attempts and culprits on all sides; it reveals the suffering of all
conflict parties. Due to its orientation towards solutions, this mode
of crisis journalism dedicates particular attention to peace initiatives
and reports on post-war developments.”

Definition of peace journalism (in Lynch and
McGoldrick, 2005)
• “….when editors and reporters make choices that create
opportunities for society at large to consider and value
non-violent responses to conflict. Peace journalism uses
the insights of conflict analysis……to update the concepts
of balance, fairness and accuracy in reporting; provides a
new route map tracing the connections between
journalists, their sources, the stories they cover and the
consequences of their journalism – the ethics of
journalistic intervention; builds an awareness of non-
violence…….”

Criticisms towards the concept of peace
journalism (in Hanitzsch, 2004)
• Significant criticism – the idea of demanding this type of journalism
raises crucial issues – what is journalism for? Is it not the task of
policy to aim to achieve peace?
• BBC correspondent David Loyn (2003) in OpenDemocracy.net
stressed that peace journalism could compromise the integrity of
journalists and confuse their role as neutral disseminators:
• “Our task is always to seek to find out what is going on……If there
is conflict resolution we report on it…..We do not engage in it.”
• Makes reference to the traditional values of journalism to sustain his
argument, pointing out that “good journalism” is about “fairness”,
“objectivity” and “balance” in reporting.
• However, some war correspondents state that they pick sides. Erich
Rathfelder from the left-wing daily Tageszeitung, highlighted that he
stood by the side of the victims.

Peace Journalism as a public service

“Objectivity” of journalism versus a
journalism of attachment
• Liberal media values and the standard journalistic practices
throughout the West and much of the world have required journalism
to be “objective”, “balanced” (looking at all sides), neutral/impartial
(not taking sides in a dispute), detached, unemotional and rational (as
opposed to sentimental, biased, partisan, overly-emotional, etc).
• Galtung (1998, 8) has stated that “peace journalism is a journalism of
attachment.” (attachment to all victims of conflict)
• Arguments against the “detached stance” of journalism, stating that it
should not be neutral in the face of injustice:
• “Bell (1997: 7-16) argues that “journalism is not a neutral and
mechanical undertaking but in some sense a moral enterprise.”
Practitioners should not close their hearts to pity, advocating a
journalism that cares as well as knows, that is aware of its
responsibilities, that will not stand neutrally between good and
evil….”

The objectivity debate and its criticisms (in
Matos, 2008)
• Hallin (2000) underlined that journalists’ commitment to objectivity has
always been problematic.
• The events which followed the Cold War consensus, such as Vietnam,
Watergate and civil rights movements, saw the diminishing of “objective
journalism” in the US and the rise of more interpretative or subjective
forms of journalism
• A case for objectivity:
• Regarding Vietnam War, Hallin (2000) stated that the changing political
environment led to modifications in news reporting.
• Objectivity permitted certain views to be treated as acceptable, when
before they were not. Hallin (2000) concluded that the backing or
critique of policies depends on the degree of consensus that these enjoy
amongst the political establishment (Tumber, 1999, 288).
• When consensus is strong, the media plays a relatively passive role and
tends to reinforce official power….when political elites are divided,
they become more active….objectivity and balance reign in the middle
region, in the sphere of legitimate controversy (Hallin, 2000 in Matos,
2008)

The objectivity debate and its criticisms (in
Matos, 2008)
• Thus some of these critics argue that in a reality of increasing
economic and political pressures on news in increasingly global
media companies, the ideal of objectivity and professionalism to
journalism should be maintained (i.e. Lichtenberg, 2000; Hallin,
2000; Matos, 2008)
• As Hackett and Zhao (1998, 88) state, the objectivity regime persists
precisely because “it does offer openings, however unequal, to
different social and cultural groups”.
• Critiques blame decline of public life on journalism
• “Hallin (1994, 11) has argued that the problems with political life in
the US are political and not journalistic, and that their solution lies in
part with political parties and social movements, although some
initiative from journalism is essential.”
• Decrease in interest runs deeper (I.e. decline of modernism, growth
of cynicism, relativism, individualism, etc).

Peace journalism: an assessment from the
perspective of mass communication theory (in
Hanitzsch, 2004)
• In order to discuss war coverage, one needs to discuss the
relationship between the media and reality
• The “Ptolemaic” and “Copernican” perspective: The “Ptolemaic”
perspective constructs an antagonism between the media and society
(“media as mirror, as reflection of society”, Schulz, 1989, 140).
• The “Copernican” understands the media as an integral component
of society. Here the mass media is seen as an active element in the
process by which reality is constructed
• A constructivist perspective disapproves of the traditional notion of
“objectivity” which assumes that the “objectiveness” of a certain
news account can be measured by its degree of correspondence with
reality.
• According to Galtung, the practice of traditional war reporting
represents reality in a distorted way.

Is the media capable of capturing the
“objective” reality?
• “…it goes without saying that the media by nature cannot provide an
“objective” representation of reality that is objective in the sense of
being identical with reality.”
• Michael Schudson (2003): “News is not a mirror of reality. It is a
representation of the world, and all representations are selective.”
• Objectivity however is not about being unfeeling. As Hanitzsch
(2004) notes, journalists have to be objective and impartial.
• Objectivity in regards to journalism is now more about journalists
submitting their reports to objective controls, such as the careful and
accurate representation of facts, reliable and varied sources, and not
about being “dispassionate”.
• Thus journalists can have their own views and feelings about the war
without allowing their passions to influence their professional
activities.

On the ideal of objectivity (in Matos, 2008)
• “We cannot coherently abandon the ideal of objectivity
and, whatever they may think, objectivity critics do not
abandon it either. To claim that a piece of journalism
piece is not objective is to say that it fails to provide the
truth.. How do we know that American news accounts on
the Gulf War are partial, except by comparison with
some other…possible accounts? We know how to
distinguish between better and worse, more or less
accurate accounts..”
• (Lichtenberg, 2000; 241-242 in Matos, 2008).

Peace Journalism and media effects
• Brosius (2003) has classified three kinds of “meta-theories”, namely:
1) of powerful media effects; 2) weak media effects and 3) selective
media effects.
• The theory of powerful media effects has gained little support, and
what is widely accepted is the theory of “selective media effects”.
• “Some media have at certain times and under certain circumstances,
an effect on some recipients.” (Brosius, 2003, 133)
• Nonetheless, the advocates of peace journalism assume that the
media has powerful effects, underestimating the impact of
interpersonal communication
• Criticism is that Galtung has not given enough consideration to
audiences and individual differences, taking them as a mass
• Development journalism – authors argue that peace journalism
could suffer the same fate, for the former did not gain a strong
foothold in the process of national development

American journalism and issues of objectivity
• When we talk about peace journalism, it is important to note
that it can only evolve in a “culture of peace”. It is too much
to demand of journalists that they “free the world”
(Hanitzsch, 2005)
• I.e. US policies on the war on terror showed how a culture
around peace journalism would be very difficult
• Jay Rosen and Michael Schudson have discussed how the
attacks got to the very heart of American journalism and its
values of objectivity;
• Schudson, among other scholars, pointed out the
marginalising of opinions against the war on terror and the
silencing of dissent
• The US coverage of the war on terror raised serious concerns
over the American’s media claim of being “objective” – “An
American first, a journalist second”.

TV war coverage and some standard
practices
• Critics (Thussu, 2003) have argued that the television
coverage of war conflicts has been immersed in economic
constraints and inserted in entertainment formats, what has
been called “infotainment” (information and entertainment)
• The coverage of war on television has become very particular
and resembling what many call a “video game” – some
common features include the predominance of visual
elements; the wide use of graphics; the avoidance of showing
shocking images and pictures of the deaths of civilians.
• As Hanitzsch (2004) correctly notes, the news coverage on the
war in Iraq (2003) has made it clear that contemporary war
journalism needs to be even more detached and self-critical.

“The Gulf War Did not Take Place” – Jean
Baudrillard
Provocative essay published in Liberation on January the
4th
, 1991
Text interrogates the nature of the Gulf war as a “media
event” (Patton, 1991)
Emphasis on technology in the reporting of the war –
technological simulacrum or dissimulation turning into an
integral part of the operational procedures (a “clean” war)
Virtual media events – real events lose their identity when
they attain the velocity of real time information (“the
structural unreality of image”, 1991, 46-47)
Hyperreality – results from the fusion of the virtual and
the real into a 3rd
order of reality.
Post-modernism thinking – Attacked from both the left
and the right; extreme anti-realism and cynicism that does
not attempt to propose any resistance or alternative

“Asian conflicts and the Iraq war” (Lee,
Maslog and Shik Kim, 2006)
• As the author note, by “taking an advocacy, interpretative approach,
the peace journalist concentrates on stories that highlight peace
initiatives; tone down ethnic and religious differences; prevent
further conflict; focus on the structure of society and promote
conflict resolution, reconstruction and reconciliation (Galtung, 1986,
1998).
• Galtung (2002) observed that traditional war journalism is modelled
after sports journalism, with a focus on winning in a zero-sum game.
• Link between peace journalism with public and development
journalism:
• “Iggers (1998: 106-7) makes a case for advocacy journalism – the
non-objective, self-conscious journalistic intervention premised in
the ideas of public journalism, development journalism and peace
journalism. The ingredients of war - …… - often conspire to prevent
objective reporting”.

• “Kellner (1992), in a study of ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN, argued
that news media did not report neutrally during the 1991 Persian
Gulf War. Stories that were broadcast during the build-up to and
subsequent war against Iraq expressed an “us against them”
attitude….The study concluded that news coverage of the Gulf War
was influenced by ideology, specifically national interest.”
• Theoretically, peace journalism is supported by framing theory –
• According to Entman, to frame is to “select some aspects of a
perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating
text….”. Through repetition, placement and reinforcement, the texts
and images provide a dominant interpretation more readily
perceivable….than other interpretations.”
• Galtung (1986, 1998) saw war journalism and peace as two
competing frames in the coverage of a conflict.
• Four broad practice and linguistic orientations - Peace/conflict,
truth, people and solutions. War journalism – war/violence,
propaganda, elites and victory.

• Study focused on content analysis of 1.558 stories from eight English
language dailies
• There were 442 stories about the Iraq war, and another 1116 stories
about local conflicts (i.e. Kashmir; Philippine Mindanao conflict; Sri
Lankan Tamil Tigers and Indonesia’s Maluku and Aceh civil wars.
• Coding frame - based on Galtung’s (1986, 1998) 13 indicators of
war journalism and 13 indicators of peace journalism:
• The approach-based criteria included: 1) reactivity; 2) visibility of
effects of war; 3) elite orientation; 4) differences; 5) focus on here
and now; 6) good and bad dichotomy; 7) party involvement; 8)
partisanship; 9) winning orientation and 10) continuity of reports.
• The language-based criteria focused on: 1) demonizing; 2)
victimizing and emotive.
• Based on the scores, the coder classified the stories as either war
journalism, peace or neutral.

• Results: “…the coverage of local conflicts contains a higher number
of stories framed as war journalism and fewer stories framed as
peace journalism, while the coverage of the Iraq war contains more
peace journalism frames and fewer war journalism frames”.
• “Of the 1116 stories about local conflicts, more than half or 603
stories (54%) were framed as war journalism compared to 420
(37.6%) framed as peace journalism and 93 that were neutral. Of the
442 stories about the Iraq war, 195 (44.1%) were framed as war
journalism, 224 (50.7%) were framed as peace journalism and 23
(5.2%) were neutral.
• In summary, the war journalism framing was more dominant in the
coverage of local conflicts while the peace journalism framing was
more dominant in the coverage of the Iraq war.
• For the Iraq War, the strongest war journalism framing was seen in
the Daily Mirror (69% of stories), while the Philippine Star showed
the strongest peace journalism (78.7%)

Peace versus War Journalism
War journalism Peace Journalism
Reactive (waits for war to break) Proactive (anticipates, starts reporting)
Reports on visible effects Reports also on invisible (trauma)
Elite-oriented (leaders as sources) People-oriented
Focuses on differences Reports on areas of agreement
Focuses on the here and now Reports on causes and consequences
Victims versus villains; bad x good Avoids the “good guy” discourse
Two-party oriented Multi-party oriented
Partisan (biased for one-side) Non-partisan (neutral)
Zero-sum game (one goal) Win-win orientation (many goals)
Stops reporting with the peace treaty Stays on and reports aftermath
Uses victimizing language Avoids victimizing language
Demonizing and emotive words Avoids demonizing and emotive words

Peace Journalism (in Lynch and McGoldrick,
2005)
• McGoldrick and Lynch remain close to the work of Galtung. They
aimed to test the model in the book in the context of the coverage of
the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq
• Journalists are placed as “participant-observers”:
• McGoldrick (2000: 19-20) described peace journalism as a “new
form of journalism” which looks at how journalists could be part of
the solution rather than part of the problem”.
• The British public were initially in favour of the war, but by
September 2003 according to the respondents of the ICM poll, the
war had been unjustified (53%)
• Authors argue that the way that the media covered the conflict
leading up to the war contributed for the views in favour of going to
war. The “official frames” that were presented, such as the necessity
for regime change and the presence of weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq, went unchallenged, leaving little room for alternative views
and for more emphasis for instance on other aspects (i.e. the “oil
theory”)

Peace Journalism (in Lynch and McGoldrick,
2005)
• Even the New York Times (already with the experience of the
Vietnam war, etc), made later an apology for accepting the dominant
frames too quickly:
• “Editors at several levels who should have been challenging
reporters and pressing for more scepticism were perhaps too intent
on rushing scoops into the paper. Accounts of Iraq defectors were
not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam
Hussein ousted…”
• Discussions of peace journalism should reach the public sphere:
• As the authors note, “peace journalism entails picking up on
suggestions for non-violent responses from whatever quarter, and
remitting them into the public sphere.”
• Peace researcher John Paul Lederach made recommendations in
regards to Iraq: “move towards re-establishing embassies….;
encourage trade and investments with Iraq first inside the sanctions
framework; establish a contact group with other countries who want
to prevent war…; develop a new security regime.”

Peace Journalism Manual (in Lynch and
McGoldrick, 2005)
• A 17 point plan for practical Peace Journalism:
• 1. Avoid portraying the conflict as between two groups only,
and instead try to look at the smaller groups involved,
pursuing many goals…;
• 2. Avoid accepting stark distinctions between “self” and
“others”. This can lead one to see the other as a “threat”
beyond civilised behaviour;
• 3. Avoid treating the conflict as if it is only happening in that
place….Try to trace the links and consequences for people in
other places;
• 4. Avoid assessing the merits of a violent action….Instead, try
to find ways of reporting on the invisible effects.
• 5. Avoid letting parties define themselves by simply quoting
their leaders’ restatements….

Peace Journalism Manual (in Lynch and
McGoldrick, 2005)
• 6. Avoid concentrating on what divides the partiers, on the
differences between what they say…
• 7. Avoid only reporting the violent acts and describing “the horror”.
• 8. Avoid blaming someone for “starting it.” Instead try looking at
how shared problems and issues are leading to consequences…
• 9. Avoid focusing on the suffering, fears and grievances of only one
party.
• 10. Avoid “victimising” language like “devastated”, “defenceless”,
“pathetic”, “tragedy”….This is disempowering and limits the options
for change.
• 11. Avoid the imprecise use of emotive words to describe what has
happened o people….
• 12. Avoid “demonising” adjectives like “cruel”, etc. Can be used to
justify an escalation of violence.
• 13. Avoid labels like “terrorist” (us x them); 14. Avoid focus on
human rights abuses and try to name all wrongdoing

Conclusions
• Peace journalism as a concept is controversial and, like development
journalism, has not achieved a wide mainstream acceptance beyond
that of a particular movement for journalistic (and social) change
• Peace Journalism is a set of procedures that attempt to question the
current crisis-driven, conflict, one-sided, win-lose portrayal of wars
by the media
• Peace journalism is useful also in its attempts to urge more critical
thinking of journalism activity and reporting of war and conflict
throughout the world, at a moment in time when economic and
political pressures are growing and contributing to the wider
distortion and manipulation of news
• Peace journalism does not have to be seen in opposition to “objective
journalism”
• Key question: would the adoption of Peace Journalism by the
mainstream media have contributed to impede conflicts in the world
(i.e. Vietnam, war in Iraq)?

Seminar activities and questions
Three activities:
Part I:
•1. Discuss the definitions of peace journalism and the critiques made
to the concept. What does Hanitzsch propose as future research?
Part II:
2. The class is divided into two groups: one pro-War Journalism and
the other pro-Peace Journalism. Each group needs to collect
arguments to defend the merits of one over the other.
Part III:
3. Would the world media’s endorsement of peace journalism have
prevented the war in Iraq? What about other wars (i..e Vietnam)?
Think about this and see if your views change after watching The Most
Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers.

Readings for week 19
Required texts:
• Appadurai, A. (2010) “Disjuncture and difference in the global
cultural economy” in D. Thussu, (Ed), International Communication: A
Reader, pp 383-392. London: Routledge.
• Schleisinger, P. (1994) “Europe’s contradictory communicative
space” in Daedalus, 123 (2), 28-55.
• Tunstall, J. (2010) “Anglo-American, global, and Euro-American
media versus media nationalism” in D. Thussu, (Ed), International
Communication: A Reader, pp 239-244. London: Routledge.
Additional texts:
•Giddens, A. (2003). Runaway World: How Globalisation is Shaping
Our Lives. New York: Routledge.
•McChesney, R. (2010) “The media system goes global” in D. Thussu,
(Ed), International Communication: A Reader, pp 188-220. London:
Routledge.

Peace Journalism

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Peace Journalism

More from Carolina Matos

Peace Journalism